Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Psychiatry Valid?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dan - 18 Oct 2005 01:12 GMT
I came across this http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm article
that claims all medical psychotropic drugs are a sham.  I have read
elsewhere that drug trials have shown consistently that SSRI's have a
statistical efficacy beyond placebo.  I am not versed in medicine to
comment of this article, but it appears to be a polemic.  Would
knowledgeable persons like to comment?

Dan
Steven Bornfeld - 18 Oct 2005 03:09 GMT
> I came across this http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm article
> that claims all medical psychotropic drugs are a sham.  I have read
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Dan

    Did Tom Cruise write this?

Steve

Signature

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}

Robert - 18 Oct 2005 03:31 GMT
> > I came across this http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm article
> > that claims all medical psychotropic drugs are a sham.  I have read
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Did Tom Cruise write this?

He never did say what causes mental illness.

> Steve
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 18 Oct 2005 04:54 GMT
> > > I came across this http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm article
> > > that claims all medical psychotropic drugs are a sham.  I have read
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> He never did say what causes mental illness.

COMMENT:

Well, being a Sciento*ogist, he probably figures it has to do with evil
spirits, aka body thetans*. In that respect, these guys aren't that
much advanced from the Jews of 2 millennia ago.

Except there's this little problem: we know that schizophrenia is far
more common in people with brain damage of any sort. Including
mechanical damage--it's been known since WW I that it develops in
soldiers with brain wounds far more often than soldiers with similarly
serious wounds in other places. And also in people with histories of
concussion and head trauma.

Perhaps the evil spirits get in more easily, through head wounds?

* see http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj871/overview.html

SBH

SBH
Robert - 18 Oct 2005 07:39 GMT
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> >
> COMMENT:
>
> Well, being a Sciento*ogist, he probably figures it has to do with evil
> spirits, aka body thetans*. In that respect, these guys aren't that
> much advanced from the Jews of 2 millennia ago.

I think he believes in dianetics.

In 1950, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (1911-1986) published Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health (The American Saint Hill Organization, Los
Angeles. All page references here are to this edition.) The book is treated
as if it were a holy scripture by Scientologists and they treat it as if it
were the cornerstone of their church, their religion, and what they consider
to be their science. Hubbard tells the reader that dianetics "...contains a
therapeutic technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills
and all organic psycho-somatic ills, with assurance of complete cure...." He
claims that he has discovered the "single source of mental derangement"
(Hubbard 6). However, in a disclaimer on the frontispiece of the book, we
are told that "Scientology and its sub-study, Dianetics, as practiced by the
Church...does not wish to accept individuals who desire treatment of
physical illness or insanity but refers these to qualified specialists of
other organizations who deal in these matters." The disclaimer seems clearly
to have been a protective mechanism against lawsuits for practicing medicine
without a license; the author repeatedly insists that dianetics can cure
just about anything that ails you. He also repeatedly insists that dianetics
is a science. Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be
able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no
scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example
of a pseudoscience.

On page 5 of Dianetics, Hubbard asserts that a science of mind must find "a
single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions,
repressions and social derangements." Such a science, he claims, must
provide "Invariant scientific evidence as to the basic nature and functional
background of the human mind." And, this science, he says, must understand
the "cause and cure of all psycho-somatic ills...." Yet, he also claims that
it would be unreasonable to expect a science of mind to be able to find a
single source of all insanities, since some are caused by "malformed,
deleted or pathologically injured brains or nervous systems" and some are
caused by doctors. Undaunted by this apparent contradiction, he goes on to
say that this science of mind "would have to rank, in experimental
precision, with physics and chemistry." He then tells us that dianetics is
"...an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of
natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences" (Hubbard, 6).

http://skepdic.com/dianetic.html
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 18 Oct 2005 14:39 GMT
> COMMENT:
>
> Well, being a Sciento*ogist, he probably figures it has to do with evil
> spirits, aka body thetans*. In that respect, these guys aren't that
> much advanced from the Jews of 2 millennia ago.

    I dunno.  I went to an Orthodox talmud torah as a kid.  I remember
nothing about thetans.
    Please don't make me read up on Scientology.  I wish to remain
blissfully ignorant in my chemically imbalanced way.

Steve

> Except there's this little problem: we know that schizophrenia is far
> more common in people with brain damage of any sort. Including
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> SBH

Signature

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

PF Riley - 19 Oct 2005 05:46 GMT
>Well, being a Sciento*ogist, he probably figures it has to do with evil
>spirits, aka body thetans*. In that respect, these guys aren't that
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Perhaps the evil spirits get in more easily, through head wounds?

But how would Tom explain the schizophrenia-like psychosis seen in
Klinefelter syndrome?

PF
Robert - 19 Oct 2005 20:27 GMT
> >Well, being a Sciento*ogist, he probably figures it has to do with evil
> >spirits, aka body thetans*. In that respect, these guys aren't that
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> PF

Structural malformations and not chemical imbalances?
Ask him or TomKat.
Twittering One - 19 Oct 2005 22:14 GMT
See:
Daniel Siegel,
Environmental + Biologic,
Within genetic parameters.

A spectrum of influence.
Twittering One - 19 Oct 2005 22:16 GMT
Observing Integration ~
Coherence & Complexity.
Twittering One - 19 Oct 2005 22:30 GMT
"Therefore, an abusive experience, especially by an attachment figure,
provides a problem situation that the child cannot solve. The problem
is that the brain of a child is looking to that attachment figure to be
a source of soothing and comfort, but instead the attachment figure
becomes the source of terror and distress.

Not only is the terror and distress bad enough, but the child who is
now terrorized needs to turn to the attachment figure for soothing, but
that's the source of the terror. So, traumatic experiences are often
overwhelming to young children.

If they have some other attachment figure in their life who can provide
security and safety, a feeling of soothing, a way of processing what
happened, then children can adapt to very difficult experiences. When
the attachment figure, on the other hand, is the source of that terror,
then there's nowhere to turn.

In terms of how abuse can actually affect the physiology of the brain,
our studies are suggesting a number of findings. The work of DeBellis
and colleagues in Pittsburgh has shown that early abuse impairs the
overall growth of the brain, in particular the growth of the connecting
fibers that link the right and left sides of the brain to each other.

This impairment can lead to significant difficulties in what lots of
researchers and I call "neural-integration", which is the way the brain
pulls information together to get a picture of, for example, how left
brain processes and right brain processes are making representations of
the world. Trauma seems to impact, at least on one level, the ability
of the brain to integrate information.

CL:So, it sounds like the result for many children who are abused or
mistreated and have no positive attachment figure in their lives would
be that they lack certain important social and emotional skills as they
develop into an adult.

DS: Right, and also that they may be at risk of not being able to
continue their development even if the stressor has stopped, which is a
really big concern. So, intervention may be a crucial feature for those
children to develop some of those skills that they wouldn't naturally
develop because of the trauma."

~Daniel Siegel

http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php/type/doc/id/818
Barry - 18 Oct 2005 19:23 GMT
Instead of reading something from a "Research Center Against
Psychiatry" try reading some research ABOUT psychiatry.

I did some research on the first guy quoted on the page you linked to.
He's not against psychiatry. At
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p961242.html he says:

-------------------
I am a psychiatrist trained in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and I
use both psychotherapy and medications in my approach to patients. I
state these facts to make it clear that this is not an antipsychiatry
tract, and I am speaking from within the field of psychiatry, although
I find it increasingly impossible to identify with this profession, for
reasons which will become clear below.

...

Having said this, what I am advocating is a psychiatry which devotes
itself humbly to the task of listening to patients in a way that other
medical practitioners cannot. This means paying close attention to a
patient's current and past narrative without attempting to control,
manipulate or define it. From this position a psychiatrist can then
assist the patient in raising relevant questions about their lives and
pain.

The temptation to provide answers or false solutions should be
absolutely avoided here. Medications are used judiciously for lowering
painful symptoms, with considerable attention paid to the psychological
effects of medication treatment. Diagnosis should play a secondary and
small role here, given that little is known about what these diagnoses
actually mean.
-------------------

Though he also says:

-------------------
patients often come to me with many years of past treatment. Patients
having been diagnosed with "chemical imbalances" despite the fact that
no test exists to support such a claim, and that there is no real
conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.
-------------------

Sounds wrong to me. There's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=6359091&query_hl=26

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.